What to do with duplicate sources attached 3 -4 times?
Most sources in my gggf's file are entered 3 and 4 times. (Spencer Sanders Wiltbank, KWJC-5BR) Is there a way to delete some of them without then having the deleted ones show up again as record hints? Or is it best to just leave all them attached?
Risposte
-
Outstanding question and one many of us have wondered about. I do know that as far as FS sources are concerned the engineers are working on a way to combine those where duplicate sources appear for the same event. You might ask why this happens. I have seen where multiple sources are listed for say a marriage - one is the original document, one is book with all the marriages transcribed, and another might be from an article of marriages for that locality in the NEHGR. If all three are in Records then they all should be sourced because if you don't source them you risk a new person being created to attach the source to. So for apparent FS duplicate sources please leave them knowing eventually they will all be able to be combined.
Your census records are a different story. If you have the same 1940 census record and it is there twice - once from FS and once from one of the other companies like Ancestry. I would detach the one from the other company. There is no need to duplicate a FS source with a source from elsewhere.
As to the non-FS sources (the one's with the world symbol in front of them) be careful not to delete any of them that FamilySearch doesn't have. Ancestry does have some non-source sources (Ancestry Tree, Millennium File, Family Record Data Collection, etc. that are just junk from trees at Ancestry with no real sources included) - these I just routinely delete.
Hope this helps.
0 -
I would be very hesitant about detaching any source.
- Multiple records documenting a single event: In many places, a vital event is recorded locally, then submitted to a higher authority. FamilySearch may have filmed both sources. You should attach both. Transcription errors are not uncommon and the average researcher may not know which is the original and which is the transcription. In many places a vital event may be recorded by both a civil and religious entity. The average researcher may not understand which to give more credence if there is a discrepancy. Or there may be agreement while a derivative source is different. All sources are important and researchers should learn how to weigh the evidence, not ignore or delete it. Reason statements should acknowledge conflicting evidence and give the logic used to adopt one value over an alternative.
- Duplicate extraction records: Sometimes it can be determined from film or batch numbers that two FamilySearch Historical Records were extracted from the same physical source. The only apparent difference is the system origin: ODM versus EASy. Unfortunately, FamilySearch did not consistently migrate extracted records from computer system to computer system. Some records were simultaneously migrated to different systems, with some information lost in one or the other. It is common for one jurisdiction level to be missing in one of the records. Or source notes might be missing in one. Even if it is determined that all the visible information is the same, there may be hidden fields that are different. While it is an unfortunate legacy of database migration, it is best to leave both records attached.
- FamilySearch sources duplicated by third parties: I would hesitate to detach a duplicate third-party source. The third-party may have a superior image or transcription than what FamilySearch has. Some images are independently created. Some images have a common origin but go through different enhancement algorithms. Some indexes are independently created, resulting in differing sets of transcription errors. Some have a common origin but different transcription errors are corrected by the site's users. The search systems of third parties provide different strengths and weaknesses and some researchers prefer linking out to one or another for different search scenarios. Some users may have subscriptions to one site and some to another. One site may share the same images and indexes today (like HeritageQuest and Ancestry), but that may not be the case forever (like HeritageQuest and Ancestry, in the past). It is best to leave all third party sources attached.
The one instance I've seen that warranted source detachment was several links to the same URL. I found several links to Find A Grave, all created by the same third-party button for easily creating FamilySearch sources. I agree that when multiple sources have the exact same URL, the duplicates can be detached. Even then, care should be taken to consolidate all the fields, including the reason statement, before detaching.
Under no circumstance should a record be marked as "Not a Match" for the purpose of keeping it off the hint list. FamilySearch utilizes an artificial intelligence system to determine what records should be considered hints and which should not. It can harm the system if you designate a record as "not a match," when it actually is.
FamilySearch is aware of all these issues and is studying the best ways to fix them. Until a fix is provided, may I suggest utilizing source titles and ordering to alleviate the confusion caused by duplicate sources. As always, cooperate with other users in determining conventions you wish to apply.
Robert Raymond
FamilySearch
0 -
Been wondering the same thing? Attached the same 'source' to grandparents wedding, again and again. Still shows-up as a 'Hint'..
Been trying to figure-out how to; 'Dismiss a Hint' (For Now)?
Another question - Is there a limit to the 'Hints' box? Keep wondering if I should 'do something' with the 'old' Hints, to get some NEW Hints? How does that work?
0 -
Will,
With programmed systems, there is always the possibility of programming errors. From your description, what you are seeing may or may not be such a case. Could you post the URL of the person in the tree? I'd like to investigate further.
Unfortunately, there is no "Dismiss a hint for now." As I mentioned before, please resist the urge to hide the hint by selecting "Not a Match." Doing so for a matching record damages the hinting system. Ancestry has the ability to "Ignore" a hint; perhaps FamilySearch should also.
Allow me to express a personal opinion. I know there is a lot of satisfaction in completely tidying up a person. I do it for a select few persons in my tree. However, I spend only a small amount of my time doing that. I feel our time is better spent elsewhere. I try to spend most of my time researching in records with high evidentiary value, for the purposes of correcting erroneous relationships, uniquely identifying persons, and adding persons not already in the tree. I spend some of my time visiting research facilities convenient to where I live and the places I travel. I take information that can only be discovered offline and I upload it into the tree. I budget some of my time to teach others less experienced than me who inadvertently mess up the tree. (Those people used to drive me crazy until I adopted the mindset that helping others was part and parcel to participation in Family Tree.) I spend some of my time doing things beyond the skill of casual researchers, such as researching in the images on FamilySearch that are not indexed and probably won't be anytime soon. I search government and university websites that casual researchers don't know about or don't have the skills to use. I'm somewhat skilled in reading cursive, so I might spend time indexing. I definitely budget time to learn, so I can do more of these things. I try not to obsess over alternate name spellings, inconsequential differences in dates, non-standardized place names, and duplicate this or that. My goal is to correct erroneous relationships, understand the identity of ancestors, and add new persons to the tree.
That's my personal opinion. Let me follow up with genealogical best practices. You probably know these already, but they are worth restating.
Careful researchers prefer original records over derivative records. They prefer primary (eyewitness) information over secondary (secondhand) information. They give weight to evidence according to how close the informant was to the event and how quickly the information was recorded. They compare and contrast multiple, independent sources. If their conclusions are not obvious, they explain their reasoning. For all contradictory information, they explain why they chose one over the other. They are seldom proven wrong when someone discovers a source they reasonably should have checked. They specify their sources so that other users of Family Tree don't have to redo their research, and so that others can judge for themselves the strength of their conclusions.
Will, thank you for participating in Family Tree, for your level of engagement, and for obviously caring. I applaud you and hope you will continue.
Robert Raymond
FamilySearch
0 -
Ron Tanner (who is over the programming of Tree) has said that we should not dismiss duplicate hints. First because they all need to be attached so someone else doesn't claim them and create a duplicate person in Tree. But more importantly, if you dismiss a hint that then tells the system to disregard the person the hint pointed to and will affect future hints. Fortunately, I guess, the dismiss hints feature isn't there right now.
0 -
I will detach a source that I added from Ancestry.com because it does not have an image nor information and if you do not have an ancestry account you can't see it. I search in familysearch and try to find the source and then attach it because it does have an image and can be seen by all. Some records that have not been indexed yet by familysearch I will leave like Georgia Marriages from Select counties. I do copy and paste the information so it can be viewed and they can go and find the information themselves.
0
